[BruceBanner]

I'm still debating my choices for a focal length less than 43mm. I have quite a few options;

• GRII/III
• F28
• FA28
• FA24
• FA20?

I currently own a KP and K-1, with the FA43 and FA77 being my main lenses. I have a SMC-A 24/2.8 for those times I need wider, but really (to not worry about focus) I am stopping down to around f8. I really want a wider angle lens with AF so that I can use F2.8, f3.5, even f4 effectively with some subject isolation.

I don't have a WR lens currently, I suppose I really should, therefore the WR 28-105 I should probably get.

I'm interested in seeing shots taken with this lens at it's widest open aperture, especially at the 28mm perspective, but really any length as well. Is 28@f3.5 really decently sharp? What's the bokeh like? Anyone done a portrait shot at this length?

Living in Australia, we don't get too much rain, and most of the events I shoot are indoors or if outdoors the odds favour sunshine. I can't remember the last time I needed/had to shoot outdoors with rain, so I worry investing in this lens is somewhat going to mean it sits redundant too much of the time, but perhaps not if the 28/3.5 aspect is pretty funky

Would love to see some sample shots with this lens! It's on sale currently, 3 days left to make a decision! Oh... and how do people find the size and bulk of the lens? Is it annoying or pretty decent?


TIA!

Bruce

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 06:54 AM ----------

I see good ol' Sandy did a test shot a 28/3.5



---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 06:58 AM ----------

And another by Sandy;



That looks pretty decent, sharp at 3.5 and even getting closer to the edges it's still decently sharp (and not just centre only).

---------- Post added 12-13-18 at 07:00 AM ----------

And another;


Anyone shot people at 28mm with this lens?

[kiwi_jono]

Can't seem to find anything wide open at 28mm at the moment but here is one wide open at 105mm...

[buberfan]

Here you are:






It's probably my most used lens. I took it to the Kimberley last June (a very dusty place) and no complaints with regard to image quality. It's also light and compact, which means I tend to take it with me more often than the D-FA 24-70.

[DeadJohn]

Is 28@f3.5 really decently sharp? What's the bokeh like? Anyone done a portrait shot at this length? ... how do people find the size and bulk of the lens? Is it annoying or pretty decent?[

Yes, the 28-105 is sharp at f3.5. Overall image quality is excellent. The only reason I use other lenses is to go wider than 28mm, longer than 105mm, and occasional forays into thin depth of field, macro photography, and handheld very low light. Have you seen this review? HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Most of my photos are landscape, architecture, and astro so I've never carefully evaluated the bokeh nor done portraits with it. I've done some semi-macro shots at 105mm (approx 1:4 magnification) and would say the bokeh is unremarkable, nothing great but nothing objectionable.

The size and bulk are quite good for a full frame zoom. It feels well matched to the K-1 and I've done long hikes with the combo. Granted, it's a bigger lens than some of the single focal length options you listed up top.

Here's a sample at the 28mm f3.5 you requested. The stars are sharp across the frame. The corners are good; there's some star trailing visible upper-right but that's sky movement not the lens' fault.

---

Last edited by DeadJohn; 12-12-2018 at 09:09 PM.

[BruceBanner]

Here you are:






It's probably my most used lens. I took it to the Kimberley last June (a very dusty place) and no complaints with regard to image quality. It's also light and compact, which means I tend to take it with me more often than the D-FA 24-70.

Yes, the 28-105 is sharp at f3.5. Overall image quality is excellent. The only reason I use other lenses is to go wider than 28mm, longer than 105mm, and occasional forays into thin depth of field, macro photography, and handheld very low light. Have you seen this review? HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Most of my photos are landscape, architecture, and astro so I've never carefully evaluated the bokeh nor done portraits with it. I've done some semi-macro shots at 105mm (approx 1:4 magnification) and would say the bokeh is unremarkable, nothing great but nothing objectionable.

The size and bulk are quite good for a full frame zoom. It feels well matched to the K-1 and I've done long hikes with the combo. Granted, it's a bigger lens than some of the single focal length options you listed up top.

Here's a sample at the 28mm f3.5 you requested. The stars are sharp across the frame. The corners are good; there's some star trailing visible upper-right but that's sky movement not the lens' fault.

Thanks fellas. It's good to see some shots.

[Paul the Sunman]

28 mm, f/3.5

[bdery]

F28

Very nice lens, decent for starbursts, good sharpness.

FA28

Great sharpness (compared well to my DA21), poor for starbursts, contrast fine but not Limited level.

FA24

Never tested it, ersearched it a lot, seems superb all around, but big and expensive.

FA20

Rare as heck, supposed to be plenty sharp, I'm thinking its reputation is partially overblown by its rarity.

You're missing the FA20-35 on that list, adn the Sigma 17-35 maybe. The former is pretty good, rendering is not as magical as the DA21 it replaced in my bag, but quite sharp, reliable, fast AF, useful short zoom, compact. The Sigma 17-35 is soft unless stopped down, huge, but can deliver beautiful images.

I don't have a WR lens currently, I suppose I really should, therefore the WR 28-105 I should probably get.

The 28-105 is, from what I can tell, similar to the 16-85 regarding rendering. One thing to note, since I got mine I've tested it a LOT (there's a thread about it) because it seems to sometimes suffer from "shutter shock" on the K-1, making images softer for speeds between roughly 1/50 to 1/200s. I've had to stop my tests because my son got ill but it seems to happen with my lens. Annoying.

I'm interested in seeing shots taken with this lens at it's widest open aperture, especially at the 28mm perspective, but really any length as well. Is 28@f3.5 really decently sharp? What's the bokeh like? Anyone done a portrait shot at this length?

You could look at the review of the lens and get a good idea

Bokeh will be good, but not particularly 3D, sharpness can be brutal, distortion is ok and good for groups or full-length portraits.

[Eagle94VT]

28 mm, f/3.5

Paul the Sunman,

I must have a bad copy of the 28-105.

Anytime I take a selfie of me in swimming attire, instead of the 12 pack abs like that young man in your photo, there is this round thing. Must be soft in the corners.

[Paul the Sunman]

Paul the Sunman,

I must have a bad copy of the 28-105.

Anytime I take a selfie of me in swimming attire, instead of the 12 pack abs like that young man in your photo, there is this round thing. Must be soft in the corners.

Yes, I'm sure you must have a de-centred copy.

As you can see, my copy is "brutally sharp", even wide open.

[ChatMechant]

First of all, why not get the 31?
The 28-105 is really nice for what it is. Sharp wide open, good bokeh, very small and light. Not bad for outdoor events in good light.
The 24-70 is better for indoor events, plus its big and "professional" looking. Shouldnt matter but often does.
Unfortunately i dont have any wide open portraits at 28mm.
The 28-105 is really good and you cant go wrong there. The others on your list i havent used. If you do a lot of events though, i would seriously consider the 24-70.
Oh yeah, since you mentioned af- ive found that the 28-105 since its a darker lens doesnt focus as well as the faster lenses do. Its still pretty good but in certain situations, the 24-70 will be much faster and more accurate.

[BruceBanner]

Very nice lens, decent for starbursts, good sharpness.



Great sharpness (compared well to my DA21), poor for starbursts, contrast fine but not Limited level.



Never tested it, ersearched it a lot, seems superb all around, but big and expensive.



Rare as heck, supposed to be plenty sharp, I'm thinking its reputation is partially overblown by its rarity.

You're missing the FA20-35 on that list, adn the Sigma 17-35 maybe. The former is pretty good, rendering is not as magical as the DA21 it replaced in my bag, but quite sharp, reliable, fast AF, useful short zoom, compact. The Sigma 17-35 is soft unless stopped down, huge, but can deliver beautiful images.



The 28-105 is, from what I can tell, similar to the 16-85 regarding rendering. One thing to note, since I got mine I've tested it a LOT (there's a thread about it) because it seems to sometimes suffer from "shutter shock" on the K-1, making images softer for speeds between roughly 1/50 to 1/200s. I've had to stop my tests because my son got ill but it seems to happen with my lens. Annoying.



You could look at the review of the lens and get a good idea

Bokeh will be good, but not particularly 3D, sharpness can be brutal, distortion is ok and good for groups or full-length portraits.

First of all, why not get the 31?
The 28-105 is really nice for what it is. Sharp wide open, good bokeh, very small and light. Not bad for outdoor events in good light.
The 24-70 is better for indoor events, plus its big and "professional" looking. Shouldnt matter but often does.
Unfortunately i dont have any wide open portraits at 28mm.
The 28-105 is really good and you cant go wrong there. The others on your list i havent used. If you do a lot of events though, i would seriously consider the 24-70.
Oh yeah, since you mentioned af- ive found that the 28-105 since its a darker lens doesnt focus as well as the faster lenses do. Its still pretty good but in certain situations, the 24-70 will be much faster and more accurate.

Just price is standing in the way

Thanks for the other info, food for thought.

[pres589]

This seems like a great opportunity for me to remind folks of the Super-Wide II AF.

[BruceBanner]

This seems like a great opportunity for me to remind folks of the Super-Wide II AF.

I noticed that lens too, issue is availability, seems very rare indeed.

I really hate how there seems to be a great many lenses that are even by todays standards acceptable, it's just they all got discontinued in the early 2000's

[pres589]

There's one on evilbay that might be good. It's hard to say for sure as the description and images of the lens are a bit weak.

They're out there, there isn't a ton of them around, but they're around. There's also the 24mm EX DG f1.8 that seems pretty good stopped down a bit. There's one on the marketplace here on PF actually, or at least was; I have 24mm as a watch word and it trips on these now and then.

[BruceBanner]

There's one on evilbay that might be good. It's hard to say for sure as the description and images of the lens are a bit weak.

They're out there, there isn't a ton of them around, but they're around. There's also the 24mm EX DG f1.8 that seems pretty good stopped down a bit. There's one on the marketplace here on PF actually, or at least was; I have 24mm as a watch word and it trips on these now and then.

got a link to the ebay one? I dunno if it's ebay in general or just the aussie site, but when you search even international the items don't come up, i've noticed that i can get the item number put it in my search box and retrieve the listing that way, I've bought a couple times doing that and the sellers have been quite surprised as they perhaps didn't intend for international buyers heh.